Thoughts about opt-out clauses?

[Can_of_corn]

Not sure I follow. I'd pay him $5M a year from age 40 to age 79...if he chooses not to opt out. After paying him $300M+ to keep him an Oriole through his age 37 season (I think I counted that correctly).

It's kind of Bonilla-esque.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Somehow I missed the 5M a year part.

Odd that.

NM.

[Number5]

So now it's free agents with opt outs?

That isn't how your argument started.

No mention of free agents there at all.

If baseball were to outlaw opt outs in the next CBA would you expect the percentage of "premium" free agents going to non-wealthy teams to go up?

Has it gone down since opt outs were introduced?

How often, historically, would non-wealthy teams be signing these players?

Exactly.

Wealthy teams are more likely to be signing these types of players.

These types of players are demanding opt outs.

Wealthy teams are signing these types of players to contracts with opt outs.

We have been disussing free agent contracts the entire time. Look, I don't understand your issue here. You actually tried to claim that the Cubs and Giants aren't wealthy teams. You talked about Arod's 2000 deal, for Pete's sake. You bring up the Marlins and the Stanton extension deal, when the Marlins are clearly as far from main-stream as it gets; and your sole point that has any coherency seems to be Andrus' extension, as if that, in any way, counters the fact that 100% of the free agent deals we are discussing have been signed by rich teams. What I have said has been accurate. You are just reaching to try to make your untenable point seem less invalid somehow. Most teams simply can't risk signing such contracts - and they aren't doing so.

[Can_of_corn]

We have been disussing free agent contracts the entire time. Look, I don't understand your issue here. You actually tried to claim that the Cubs and Giants aren't wealthy teams. You talked about Arod's 2000 deal, for Pete's sake. You bring up the Marlins and the Stanton extension deal, when the Marlins are clearly as far from main-stream as it gets; and your sole point that has any coherency seems to be Andrus' extension, as if that, in any way, counters the fact that 100% of the free agent deals we are discussing have been signed by rich teams. What I have said has been accurate. You are just reaching to try to make your untenable point seem less invalid somehow. Most teams simply can't risk signing such contracts - and they aren't doing so.

Not sure why you, specifically, have such difficulty understanding what I say.

We were discussing opt outs. No one said the discussion was solely about free agents until I came up with examples of non-wealthy teams giving opt outs. Then suddenly you changed the narrative.

You have provided no evidence that opt outs favor wealthy teams.

Wealthy teams have always dominated premium free agents signings and having a half dozen contracts with opt outs this offseason isn't going to change that.

It would take years of data to be able to see if an actual shift in what teams sign premium free agents has occurred and if opt outs are causative.

[El Gordo]

In the case of CD, a 3 year contract would be ideal. We can be reasonably confident he will be productive for at least two of those years. But we can also be reasonably confident he will begin to decline in years 3, 4, or 5. But in order to sign him we have to offer him at least 7. So by giving him an opt out at years two or three we have a chance of getting his most productive years and not having to pay for the decline. What have we got to lose? He may be productive for a year or two after that, but eventually he will decline and we could save that money.

[thezeroes]

This years OPT OUTS and all the future OPT OUTS will also have the effect of the Free Agent Class when these players can OPT OUT at the end of 2018. That particular class of free agents may also have to contend with the pending free agency of both Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. There will be a limited amount of resources to go around and those two alone could take up the entire off season budget for their respective suitors. If that is the case and the teams you hoped would be bidding on you would you then Opt Out if the $$$ was not there?

Supply and demand for service because of fiscal constraints may net you as an OPT OUT a net loss.

[Number5]

Not sure why you, specifically, have such difficulty understanding what I say.

We were discussing opt outs. No one said the discussion was solely about free agents until I came up with examples of non-wealthy teams giving opt outs. Then suddenly you changed the narrative.

You have provided no evidence that opt outs favor wealthy teams.

Wealthy teams have always dominated premium free agents signings and having a half dozen contracts with opt outs this offseason isn't going to change that.

It would take years of data to be able to see if an actual shift in what teams sign premium free agents has occurred and if opt outs are causative.

You need evidence for this? Wow. We obviously disagree, and are unlikely to have that change. Meanwhile, we still await the first such signing by a non-wealthy team. Happy New Year.

[Can_of_corn]

You need evidence for this? Wow. We obviously disagree, and are unlikely to have that change. Meanwhile, we still await the first such signing by a non-wealthy team. Happy New Year.

Sure I do.

Pre opt outs- virtually all the premium free agents went to wealthy teams.

Post opt outs- the premium free agents are going to the wealthy teams.

Not seeing a big difference yet.

Me, I'm shocked that a half dozen data points are all you need to reach a conclusion.

[24fps]

I think that during bargaining for the next CBA the owners should bargain to make opt-outs and no-trade clauses mutually exclusive. A player can have either or more likely none, but not both.

My concern about the opt-out the way it's use is currently developing is that it is going to become commonplace for players to demand one and that's going to become another delay in the negotiating process. How long before the Gerardo Parra's of the world are demanding one?

[weams]

I think that during bargaining for the next CBA the owners should bargain to make opt-outs and no-trade clauses mutually exclusive. A player can have either or more likely none, but not both.

My concern about the opt-out the way it's use is currently developing is that it is going to become commonplace for players to demand one and that's going to become another delay in the negotiating process. How long before the Gerardo Parra's of the world are demanding one?

There are 750 guys that can do this in the world. And 150 of them fall off that list each year and are replaced by new ones. Without a lock out, owners demands are likely to be limited.

[24fps]

There are 750 guys that can do this in the world. And 150 of them fall off that list each year and are replaced by new ones. Without a lock out, owners demands are likely to be limited.

If you know the bouncer is going to chuck you into the street anyway shouldn't you have as much fun as possible beforehand?

[rudyrooster]

I don't really think these "opt-out" clauses that some players are seeking is any big deal. MLB contracts are guaranteed thru the term of the contract. If a player opts out then you take those savings and go out and sign another good player. What's the problem?

[tntoriole]

The problem with opt outs is that it essentially gives more players multiple free agent bites at the apple which collectively will drive the market even higher and faster, just as if players could have arbitration earlier and then have it again mid season at their option if they are performing well. It will be disastrous for any cost control and will be yet another way that large market teams will be able to attract free agents that small market teams cannot. It is only to the player's benefit. For those who see it as getting out of the back end of the deal, then why would the player not then just take a shorter deal if he wants to be a free agent again? Because he wants the money if he sucks, that's why. The team gets squat that they did not already have in a regular deal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Crazysilver03]

An opt out after one season is ridiculous for the team.Its not ridiculous and perhaps even advantageous if its a 3-4 year opt out.The Dodgers potentially get Kazmir for one good season and then they are potentially back without him. Maybe thats why they are signing Maeda and others.I think the quick opt out option is only good for the players. Its horrible for the franchise and the fans.

At least the Dodgers have a higher chance of netting a draft pick after year one then year three. The Dodgers also have top prospect pitchers that could or should step in the following year.

[Crazysilver03]

At least the Dodgers have a higher chance of netting a draft pick after year one then year three. The Dodgers also have top prospect pitchers that could or should step in the following year.

And the Dodgers GM Has offered the same sentiments in anew interview now.

[Larry18]

And the Dodgers GM Has offered the same sentiments in anew interview now.

Probably because they don't want Kazmir for more than one year. He gives them stability in the rotation,something that shouldn't be an issue in 2017 when 4 additional starters are scheduled to pitch from day one. Not to mention that they'll probably land Strasburg to slide behind Kershaw.